So no concerns about someone sitting around to see who gets into a car with a phone mount?SuperDave1426 wrote:I value my privacy (what little of it there is, these days), but half a residential block isn't something that would make me too terribly nervous for someone to figure out (I realize that others might not feel that way).
Well yeah, but that's looking for just anyone, not a specific someone.SuperDave1426 wrote:Heck, someone can do that now, completely unrelated to Waze.bgodette wrote:So no concerns about someone sitting around to see who gets into a car with a phone mount?SuperDave1426 wrote:I value my privacy (what little of it there is, these days), but half a residential block isn't something that would make me too terribly nervous for someone to figure out (I realize that others might not feel that way).
Hamburger roundabouts are a special case. I believe there's a good discussion about them in the UK forums. IIRC one solution is to have the "meat" connect to the segments outside of the RB if turns from inside onto the RB aren't allowed.bgarch wrote:"#74 The drivable roundabout node A has more than one segment connected"
Hi berestovskyy, please take a look of this situation concerning "Rule #74: The drivable roundabout node A has more than one segment connected". The script reports roundabout nodes with multiple connections, but I don't think there is another way to do this. Or there it is? Thanks.
https://www.waze.com/editor/?lon=27.249 ... =252358268
Same here.autenil wrote:I just got a notification about Validator being expired. I checked the Chrome store and there's no new version...
This does seem an excellent time to thank the author for this wonderful script.
I started with Waze In January and did a few hundred edits...laboriously hunting around my area for errors.
And then I discovered this script. It's an evening like this that makes you realize how important it is.
I started with Waze In January and did a few hundred edits...laboriously hunting around my area for errors.
And then I discovered this script. It's an evening like this that makes you realize how important it is.
https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/images/c/c1/ ... Tester.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/c5s.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/s0300.png
Large area manager: NW Ohio USA
Large area manager: NW Ohio USA
If the reason for the expiration is to motivate berestovskyy to work on the script, couldn't that also be accomplished with a pop-up when running the script after the hard-wired date...
Something like "Send a PM to berestovskyy and remind him the WME Validator script is 2 months old".
That way this very valuable script would continue to work and the author would get the reminder he wants.
Something like "Send a PM to berestovskyy and remind him the WME Validator script is 2 months old".
That way this very valuable script would continue to work and the author would get the reminder he wants.
https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/images/c/c1/ ... Tester.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/c5s.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/s0300.png
Large area manager: NW Ohio USA
Large area manager: NW Ohio USA
First, let me say this is an incredibly useful tool.
Second...
Is there a reason there isn't a check for "one-way street with dead-end"? I can't think how this ever wouldn't indicate a problem of some sort. A friend believes this check used to be be present but doesn't know why it would have been removed.
Second...
Is there a reason there isn't a check for "one-way street with dead-end"? I can't think how this ever wouldn't indicate a problem of some sort. A friend believes this check used to be be present but doesn't know why it would have been removed.
https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/images/c/c1/ ... Tester.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/c5s.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/s0300.png
Large area manager: NW Ohio USA
Large area manager: NW Ohio USA
I love Validator and can't imagine editing without it.
There is an issue with the % calculations (which must have been pointed out before, but I didn't want to re-read the 177 pages of this thread...)
(Edited to add: As Glodenox kindly points out below, I didn't notice the difference between % and ‰. Sorry.)
There is an issue with the % calculations (which must have been pointed out before, but I didn't want to re-read the 177 pages of this thread...)
That's really 3.3%Total number of segments checked: 1912
Reported warnings — 64 (33‰)
(Edited to add: As Glodenox kindly points out below, I didn't notice the difference between % and ‰. Sorry.)
Last edited by Bill473 on Sun Apr 24, 2016 11:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/images/c/c1/ ... Tester.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/c5s.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/s0300.png
Large area manager: NW Ohio USA
Large area manager: NW Ohio USA
Not just in theory, but in reality it's not an error. Obviously I didn't notice that unusual symbol.
(Thanks for pointing that out.)
(Thanks for pointing that out.)
https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/images/c/c1/ ... Tester.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/c5s.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/s0300.png
Large area manager: NW Ohio USA
Large area manager: NW Ohio USA
Continuing thanks for this wonderful script.
With the addition of speed limits, checks #36 and 37 (Unneeded (slow)) flag nodes that cannot be removed because of different speed limits. It would be wonderful if you can add a check that speed limits are the same before flagging a node as "unneeded".
I'm finding custom checks so useful that I'm already using all 128-139. Can more be added for custom use?
With the addition of speed limits, checks #36 and 37 (Unneeded (slow)) flag nodes that cannot be removed because of different speed limits. It would be wonderful if you can add a check that speed limits are the same before flagging a node as "unneeded".
I'm finding custom checks so useful that I'm already using all 128-139. Can more be added for custom use?
https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/images/c/c1/ ... Tester.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/c5s.pnghttps://s.waze.tools/s0300.png
Large area manager: NW Ohio USA
Large area manager: NW Ohio USA
Re: [Script] WME Validator 0.9.8 (BETA) / 15.04.2014